YOUR VIEW ON CIRCUMCISION

I have a son I did not have him circumcised. I personally think it's an unnessacary risk to take. It does kill babies every year. I believe if the foreskin wasn't meant to be there thats how boys would be born. If this coming baby is a boy he will not be circumcised either. What is your view?

I have a son I did not have him circumcised. I personally think it's an unnessacary risk to take. It does kill babies every year. I believe if the foreskin wasn't meant to be there thats how boys would be born. If this coming baby is a boy he will not be circumcised either. What is your view?

I had no idea that babies have died from circumcision .. My son was circumsiced I let his father make that choice he wanted his son to have it done.. I definately would've debated the issue if I had known death was a possibility.. Both of my brothers weren't and that was only due to lack of money.

I had no idea that babies have died from circumcision .. My son was circumsiced I let his father make that choice he wanted his son to have it done.. I definately would've debated the issue if I had known death was a possibility.. Both of my brothers weren't and that was only due to lack of money.

More than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

More than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

I agree. I don't think anyone is wrong or right in the decision. I, personally, will have my future son(s) circumcised. in my opinion, if daddy is, baby should be. if daddy is not, same goes for baby. The way I view it, when daddy tries to teach him how to stand and pee, I don't want my son to wonder why his "pee pee" looks different. self esteem is built even that young. If a father is circumcised and the child is not, I would be afraid the child would think something was wrong. But like pp said, to each their own :)

I agree. I don't think anyone is wrong or right in the decision. I, personally, will have my future son(s) circumcised. in my opinion, if daddy is, baby should be. if daddy is not, same goes for baby. The way I view it, when daddy tries to teach him how to stand and pee, I don't want my son to wonder why his "pee pee" looks different. self esteem is built even that young. If a father is circumcised and the child is not, I would be afraid the child would think something was wrong. But like pp said, to each their own :)

A man's opinion on the subject of circumcision more often than not reflects the state of his own foreskin. The majority of men in this country are circumcised as infants and, therefore, have no memory of what it was like to have an intact member. They don't remember the pain of being circumcised and they are, more often than not, content with the appearance and function of their penis (and if they're not content, it usually has nothing to do with their lack of foreskin). On the other hand, most men who reach adulthood with intact foreskins are equally content with the appearance and function of their penis.

A woman's opinion of circumcision is more variable. European women, who are unaccustomed to circumcised penises, think that they are pretty funny-looking, and will generally prefer an uncircumcised man. American women, who are accustomed to circumcision, may think that foreskins are a bit strange. Fortunately for men from both camps, any woman worth having is smart enough to judge a man on qualities other than the presence or lack of a quarter ounce of skin (in truth, I have no idea how much an adult foreskin weighs, but you get the idea).

There have been quite a few studies evaluating the health risks and benefits of circumcision. If you ask the rabid anti-circumcision activists, they will cite the studies that found higher rates of erectile dysfunction in circumcised men, lower sensitivity of the glans of the penis in circumcised men and significantly reduced satisfaction with masturbation. They will also tell you the horror stories about circumcisions gone wrong, where more than the foreskin was removed or where post-surgical infections had disastrous, even deadly consequences. On the other hand, if you visit circinfo.net, a decidedly pro-circumcision website, you will find citations from studies showing that circumcisionÂ reducesÂ rates of erectile dysfunction andÂ increasesÂ sexual satisfaction. Interestingly, pro-circumcision advocates will either argue that circumcisionÂ increasesÂ the sensitivity of the glans of the penis, which sounds good, or they will argue that itÂ decreasesÂ the sensitivity, which is also good... because it allows men to last longer during sex. Considering that men may experience either the problem of too much sensitivity or too little, its not clear to me that either change can be considered of universal benefit. The results of all of these studies add up to very few if any statistically significant results, and about as many anti-circumcision results as pro.

The most compelling argument for circumcision, since there is no consistent evidence of harm or benefit in terms of sexual function, comes from the studies relating to rates of disease in circumcised versus uncircumcised men. Advocates of circumcision will tell you that uncircumcised men have ten times the risk of penile cancer as compared to circumcised men. And the risk of penile cancer is related to other diseases that occur in greater frequency in uncircumcised men, including HPV, HIV and phimosis. However, the risk of penile cancer in American men is only 1 in 100,000. Therefore, we would have to do tens of thousands of circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer. And as rare as complications of circumcision are, for every ten thousand circumcisions we do, at least a few will result in serious complications. In essence, by performing neonatal circumcisions, we are trading the extremely slim possibility of disease in the older adult male for a similar possibility of serious iatrogenic complications beginning in infancy. Virtually all of the diseases that circumcision is purported to be protective against can be traced to poor hygiene. The most significant studies in defense of circumcision were performed in Africa, where access to clean water, condoms and changes in dangerous sexual practices, would have a more profound positive effect than would circumcising the entire population. In the Unites States, the incidence of these diseases is quite low and the means to prevent them, without circumcision, are readily available. Studies performed regarding circumcision in third world countries, therefore bear little relevance to the risks facing men in the U.S.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a veryÂ comprehensive policy statementÂ regarding circumcision, which they revise frequently to reflect the most recent research regarding the possible health benefits of circumcision. However, they, like virtually every other respected medical society, ultimately conclude that the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision are insufficient to make a recommendation.

I would hazard a guess that most parents are not making the decision of whether to circumcise their sons based on their careful appraisal of its potential health benefits. Rather, they are making the decision based on one factor: Dad. If Dad is circumcised, then circumcision is the obvious,normalÂ choice. Circumcised Dad will, no doubt, worry that his son will be the subject of locker room bullying if his penis does not conform to American standards. Circumcised Dad will assume the worst about the consequences of going uncircumcised and will latch onto the studies which indicate the vast dangers of possessing a foreskin. Ultimately, Circumcised Dad will be compelled to take the path of least resistance, which for him is to obey tradition and not question the decision that his own parents made for him. Uncircumcised Dad, of course, has no such concerns. He knows that, even if he did get curious looks in the locker room growing up, the rates of circumcision are steadily dropping so that nearly half the other boys in the locker room in the future will also be in possession of a foreskin. Uncircumcised Dad pays careful attention to the studies and statements that fail to support neonatal circumcision and wouldn't think of letting his son be altered.

As far as I am concerned, circumcision is an elective cosmetic procedure being routinely performed on individuals who are incapable of giving consent. Although they can not communicate the extent, and do not remember years later, circumcision causes infants stress and at least some degree of pain. And although the complications are infrequent, it is by no means clear that the benefits outweigh the risks. Therefore, I would not, as a doctor, recommend neonatal circumcision to my patients, I would not perform neonatal circumcisions, and my sons, if I have any, will not be circumcised. That said, I understand that many people have and will continue to choose circumcision with the best of intentions. I only hope that parents who have yet to make those decisions will do so with an open mind and as true an understanding of the facts as is possible.

A man's opinion on the subject of circumcision more often than not reflects the state of his own foreskin. The majority of men in this country are circumcised as infants and, therefore, have no memory of what it was like to have an intact member. They don't remember the pain of being circumcised and they are, more often than not, content with the appearance and function of their penis (and if they're not content, it usually has nothing to do with their lack of foreskin). On the other hand, most men who reach adulthood with intact foreskins are equally content with the appearance and function of their penis.

A woman's opinion of circumcision is more variable. European women, who are unaccustomed to circumcised penises, think that they are pretty funny-looking, and will generally prefer an uncircumcised man. American women, who are accustomed to circumcision, may think that foreskins are a bit strange. Fortunately for men from both camps, any woman worth having is smart enough to judge a man on qualities other than the presence or lack of a quarter ounce of skin (in truth, I have no idea how much an adult foreskin weighs, but you get the idea).

There have been quite a few studies evaluating the health risks and benefits of circumcision. If you ask the rabid anti-circumcision activists, they will cite the studies that found higher rates of erectile dysfunction in circumcised men, lower sensitivity of the glans of the penis in circumcised men and significantly reduced satisfaction with masturbation. They will also tell you the horror stories about circumcisions gone wrong, where more than the foreskin was removed or where post-surgical infections had disastrous, even deadly consequences. On the other hand, if you visit circinfo.net, a decidedly pro-circumcision website, you will find citations from studies showing that circumcisionÂ reducesÂ rates of erectile dysfunction andÂ increasesÂ sexual satisfaction. Interestingly, pro-circumcision advocates will either argue that circumcisionÂ increasesÂ the sensitivity of the glans of the penis, which sounds good, or they will argue that itÂ decreasesÂ the sensitivity, which is also good... because it allows men to last longer during sex. Considering that men may experience either the problem of too much sensitivity or too little, its not clear to me that either change can be considered of universal benefit. The results of all of these studies add up to very few if any statistically significant results, and about as many anti-circumcision results as pro.

The most compelling argument for circumcision, since there is no consistent evidence of harm or benefit in terms of sexual function, comes from the studies relating to rates of disease in circumcised versus uncircumcised men. Advocates of circumcision will tell you that uncircumcised men have ten times the risk of penile cancer as compared to circumcised men. And the risk of penile cancer is related to other diseases that occur in greater frequency in uncircumcised men, including HPV, HIV and phimosis. However, the risk of penile cancer in American men is only 1 in 100,000. Therefore, we would have to do tens of thousands of circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer. And as rare as complications of circumcision are, for every ten thousand circumcisions we do, at least a few will result in serious complications. In essence, by performing neonatal circumcisions, we are trading the extremely slim possibility of disease in the older adult male for a similar possibility of serious iatrogenic complications beginning in infancy. Virtually all of the diseases that circumcision is purported to be protective against can be traced to poor hygiene. The most significant studies in defense of circumcision were performed in Africa, where access to clean water, condoms and changes in dangerous sexual practices, would have a more profound positive effect than would circumcising the entire population. In the Unites States, the incidence of these diseases is quite low and the means to prevent them, without circumcision, are readily available. Studies performed regarding circumcision in third world countries, therefore bear little relevance to the risks facing men in the U.S.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a veryÂ comprehensive policy statementÂ regarding circumcision, which they revise frequently to reflect the most recent research regarding the possible health benefits of circumcision. However, they, like virtually every other respected medical society, ultimately conclude that the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision are insufficient to make a recommendation.

I would hazard a guess that most parents are not making the decision of whether to circumcise their sons based on their careful appraisal of its potential health benefits. Rather, they are making the decision based on one factor: Dad. If Dad is circumcised, then circumcision is the obvious,normalÂ choice. Circumcised Dad will, no doubt, worry that his son will be the subject of locker room bullying if his penis does not conform to American standards. Circumcised Dad will assume the worst about the consequences of going uncircumcised and will latch onto the studies which indicate the vast dangers of possessing a foreskin. Ultimately, Circumcised Dad will be compelled to take the path of least resistance, which for him is to obey tradition and not question the decision that his own parents made for him. Uncircumcised Dad, of course, has no such concerns. He knows that, even if he did get curious looks in the locker room growing up, the rates of circumcision are steadily dropping so that nearly half the other boys in the locker room in the future will also be in possession of a foreskin. Uncircumcised Dad pays careful attention to the studies and statements that fail to support neonatal circumcision and wouldn't think of letting his son be altered.

As far as I am concerned, circumcision is an elective cosmetic procedure being routinely performed on individuals who are incapable of giving consent. Although they can not communicate the extent, and do not remember years later, circumcision causes infants stress and at least some degree of pain. And although the complications are infrequent, it is by no means clear that the benefits outweigh the risks. Therefore, I would not, as a doctor, recommend neonatal circumcision to my patients, I would not perform neonatal circumcisions, and my sons, if I have any, will not be circumcised. That said, I understand that many people have and will continue to choose circumcision with the best of intentions. I only hope that parents who have yet to make those decisions will do so with an open mind and as true an understanding of the facts as is possible.

I feel it's an unnecessary cosmetic procedure that serves no real purpose, medical, religious or otherwise. It is HIS body and it should be HIS choice. If my child comes to me in his teen years and wants it done, we can talk about it. It's an informed consent issue and a baby cannot give informed consent and no one should be allowed to for something that is purely cosmetic! If his nose wasn't just the way I wanted, it would be a monstrosity for me to have a rhinoplasty done. I don't know is parents have watched videos of babies being circumcised before they do it or not but I personally, cannot make it through a video of the surgery, let alone subject my sweet peaceful little baby to it! "to each their own," yes! But the baby doesn't get a say in the matter so that expression can hardly apply here. My husband is circumcised and went through a hard time when we did the research because he felt robbed.

I feel it's an unnecessary cosmetic procedure that serves no real purpose, medical, religious or otherwise. It is HIS body and it should be HIS choice. If my child comes to me in his teen years and wants it done, we can talk about it. It's an informed consent issue and a baby cannot give informed consent and no one should be allowed to for something that is purely cosmetic! If his nose wasn't just the way I wanted, it would be a monstrosity for me to have a rhinoplasty done. I don't know is parents have watched videos of babies being circumcised before they do it or not but I personally, cannot make it through a video of the surgery, let alone subject my sweet peaceful little baby to it! "to each their own," yes! But the baby doesn't get a say in the matter so that expression can hardly apply here. My husband is circumcised and went through a hard time when we did the research because he felt robbed.

I think it is barbaric. I will not be circumsizing any son of mine. Cutting off part of a newborn's perfect body is just ignorant. Circumsized men are going to have less sexual sensitivity. Also, a new circumcision is prone to infection. I have known people whose kids were circumsized and when it healed, it grew together and had to be pulled apart, which is apparently very painful. I don't get the whole "circumcision is cleaner" argument. How hard is it to retract a foreskin and wash it? The meatus is not meant to be exposed all the time.

For the argument that you don't want your cihld to "look different", will you also pay for your daughter's breast implants if she's flat chested? You don't want to her to have poor self esteem related to her sexual features do you?

I think it is barbaric. I will not be circumsizing any son of mine. Cutting off part of a newborn's perfect body is just ignorant. Circumsized men are going to have less sexual sensitivity. Also, a new circumcision is prone to infection. I have known people whose kids were circumsized and when it healed, it grew together and had to be pulled apart, which is apparently very painful. I don't get the whole "circumcision is cleaner" argument. How hard is it to retract a foreskin and wash it? The meatus is not meant to be exposed all the time.

For the argument that you don't want your cihld to "look different", will you also pay for your daughter's breast implants if she's flat chested? You don't want to her to have poor self esteem related to her sexual features do you?

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

Talk to your doctor about the pros and cons of circumc

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

Despite the possible benefits and risks, circumcision is neither essential nor detrimental to a boy's health. The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it.

There's no such thing as a "calm, rational circumcision debate," especially among hormonally charged mothers and mothers-to-be. This debate has been done dozens of times over on the Hot topics board and it gets ugly Every. Single. Time. Why? Because there are some people who insist on name calling--calling the moms who circumscise "barbaric" and other such lovely adjectives and adverbs. Everybody knows that a parent who chooses to circumcise just loves walking around, looking for the nearest foreskin to slice. It's a fun sport. And of course, no one who circumcises ever researches it either. We all like to do it because of the "Locker Room Defense." *tone was extremely sarcastic for anyone who lacks the brain cells to figure that out* Okay, that was mean, but I'm just sick and tired of people sticking their noses where they don't belong.

My thoughts? It's a parenting choice. In MOST cases, circumcision is harmless. Of course, there are horror stories. But, there are also cases where circumcision is a necessary--like with my nephew who had hypospadia. There are cases where circumcision can be beneficial, like in someone who has a strong history of diabetes. Every (smart) parent looks at the situation in a benefits versus risks fashion, and comes to a decision. Some choose circumcision for the very small potential benefits. Some think the risks are not worth it.

Circumcision can be very educational, as long as people are willing to educate, and not condemn. Is it really necessary to spew out "You are mutilating your perfect baby boy!" to get your (general you) point across?

Personally, I hate this debate as much (if not more so) as the breastfeeding versus formula feeding ebate.

There's no such thing as a "calm, rational circumcision debate," especially among hormonally charged mothers and mothers-to-be. This debate has been done dozens of times over on the Hot topics board and it gets ugly Every. Single. Time. Why? Because there are some people who insist on name calling--calling the moms who circumscise "barbaric" and other such lovely adjectives and adverbs. Everybody knows that a parent who chooses to circumcise just loves walking around, looking for the nearest foreskin to slice. It's a fun sport. And of course, no one who circumcises ever researches it either. We all like to do it because of the "Locker Room Defense." *tone was extremely sarcastic for anyone who lacks the brain cells to figure that out* Okay, that was mean, but I'm just sick and tired of people sticking their noses where they don't belong.

My thoughts? It's a parenting choice. In MOST cases, circumcision is harmless. Of course, there are horror stories. But, there are also cases where circumcision is a necessary--like with my nephew who had hypospadia. There are cases where circumcision can be beneficial, like in someone who has a strong history of diabetes. Every (smart) parent looks at the situation in a benefits versus risks fashion, and comes to a decision. Some choose circumcision for the very small potential benefits. Some think the risks are not worth it.

Circumcision can be very educational, as long as people are willing to educate, and not condemn. Is it really necessary to spew out "You are mutilating your perfect baby boy!" to get your (general you) point across?

Personally, I hate this debate as much (if not more so) as the breastfeeding versus formula feeding ebate.

Let's not forget the CIO debate and vaccines and when to start solids--and whether you use jarred food or make your own baby food. The list goes on and on. Some women just can't resist the temptation to make other mothers feel like sh!t for their choices. Usually, those are the women who are insecure in their own choices. Much like the playground bully who has a terrible home life...

Let's not forget the CIO debate and vaccines and when to start solids--and whether you use jarred food or make your own baby food. The list goes on and on. Some women just can't resist the temptation to make other mothers feel like sh!t for their choices. Usually, those are the women who are insecure in their own choices. Much like the playground bully who has a terrible home life...

I didn't call other moms names. I said I think the practice is ignorant and barbaric. That is not the same as calling people names. I don't necessarily think that mothers who make this decision are ignorant and barbaric as people, but I do feel that way about circumsion. It is possible to feel that someone is making a bad decision without thinking they are a bad person.

That's the thing that I hate about debates- if someone disagrees with your opinion they will twist your words all around to make it look like you are the bad guy, when it just isn't so.

As to the "locker room defense", someone (I don't remember who off the top of my head) did say that they didn't want to hurt their child's self esteem. If they are worried about their son's self eteem related to his penis, are they also concerned about their daughter's self-esteem related to her breasts? Why or why not? I really would like to know the reasoning because I enjoy learning other peoples' perspectives. It makes perfect sense to me that someone who would would to operate on their son for self-esteem reasons would also be willing to operate on their daughter for self-esteem reasons.

As far as sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, well, this is an open debate in an internet forum. How exactly does my nose not belong here? I am pregnant, expecting a baby at the beginning of December 2011. Are we going to start the post police on this board too?

And I stand by my statement that it is unecessary to cut off part of a baby's body without medical reason. I feel that the majority of babies are made the way God, or Nature, or whatever you believe in, intended. Of ourse there are the occasional babies who require medical intervention, but generally speaking, I don't know of any emergent situation that requires circumcision. That is why it is an elective procedure.

And I have educated myself about both sides of the debate, so implying that I'm making my decision and my argument without researching it is incorrect.

Since you post seemed to be mostly aimed at me, I'll respond:

I didn't call other moms names. I said I think the practice is ignorant and barbaric. That is not the same as calling people names. I don't necessarily think that mothers who make this decision are ignorant and barbaric as people, but I do feel that way about circumsion. It is possible to feel that someone is making a bad decision without thinking they are a bad person.

That's the thing that I hate about debates- if someone disagrees with your opinion they will twist your words all around to make it look like you are the bad guy, when it just isn't so.

As to the "locker room defense", someone (I don't remember who off the top of my head) did say that they didn't want to hurt their child's self esteem. If they are worried about their son's self eteem related to his penis, are they also concerned about their daughter's self-esteem related to her breasts? Why or why not? I really would like to know the reasoning because I enjoy learning other peoples' perspectives. It makes perfect sense to me that someone who would would to operate on their son for self-esteem reasons would also be willing to operate on their daughter for self-esteem reasons.

As far as sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, well, this is an open debate in an internet forum. How exactly does my nose not belong here? I am pregnant, expecting a baby at the beginning of December 2011. Are we going to start the post police on this board too?

And I stand by my statement that it is unecessary to cut off part of a baby's body without medical reason. I feel that the majority of babies are made the way God, or Nature, or whatever you believe in, intended. Of ourse there are the occasional babies who require medical intervention, but generally speaking, I don't know of any emergent situation that requires circumcision. That is why it is an elective procedure.

And I have educated myself about both sides of the debate, so implying that I'm making my decision and my argument without researching it is incorrect.

My husband is circumcised but we decided not to have out son cut. If this one is a boy we will not have him cut either. We did research on the matter last time and there really isn't a benefit for doing it. And more and more parents are not circumcising their sons in the US now (we are really the only country that does it besides for religious reasons) I think the estimate was 50/50 on boys that were circumcised.

My husband is circumcised but we decided not to have out son cut. If this one is a boy we will not have him cut either. We did research on the matter last time and there really isn't a benefit for doing it. And more and more parents are not circumcising their sons in the US now (we are really the only country that does it besides for religious reasons) I think the estimate was 50/50 on boys that were circumcised.

I have an 11 month old girl and if this one is a boy he will be circumcised. I do find it a personal choice, as I am sure other mother's do. I read that "what if your daughter is flat chested" thing, and not to be rude, but I was overly blessed and had a reduction my senior year of high school and an so glad my parents agreed to it(it was medically necessary). I would do the same for my daughter if it was needed.

I have an 11 month old girl and if this one is a boy he will be circumcised. I do find it a personal choice, as I am sure other mother's do. I read that "what if your daughter is flat chested" thing, and not to be rude, but I was overly blessed and had a reduction my senior year of high school and an so glad my parents agreed to it(it was medically necessary). I would do the same for my daughter if it was needed.

The material on this website is provided for educational purposes only and is not to be used for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, or in place of therapy or medical care. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use and privacy policy

Advertising Notice

This Site and third parties who place advertisements on this Site may collect and use information about your visits to this Site and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like to obtain more information about these advertising practices and to make choices about online behavioral advertising, please click here